As to their being fewer ways than in the US, I don't know what. I'd like to talk to an expert on Canadian corruption because corruption is always something that happens in the details. I don't think you're such an expert.

I'd have to do research on the topic to feel I had a handle on it.

As to my Latin, actually you're just looking at wikipedia and not reading it properly from the wikipedia article you should have read deeper into:
"Hence a literal translation is, âthe public thing/affairâ(TM)"

The "Public Thing" is actually what we're looking at here. And what is the public thing?

The law.

Next issue.

As to how canada can match the US with its various problems. I don't know. I don't know the canadian system well enough to know how to exploit it. It takes experts in the US system to learn how to exploit it. Why would I be so arrogant as to assume that the canadian system could be corrupted without any deep knowledge of it?

You're holding out as the central feature of the canadian system that power is more centralized. That is the only reason you're saying it is less corruptible and centralizing power makes corruption easier. So your whole premise makes no sense.

I am sure there are things that work in the US system that do not work in the Canadian system. There is no doubt. However, saying that the canadian system is less corrupt cannot be substantiated by simply saying that power is more centralized.

I have no idea how corrupt the Canadian system is and frankly I doubt that you have the first clue either.

A problem you run into with Canadians and Northern Europeans is that they have such a deep belief in their lack of corruption that they don't actually look for it or suspect it. I ran into this with a Danish friend of mine that was telling me how uncorruptable his government was... It took me about 5 minutes to find serious corruption that he said didn't exist.

They don't look because they arrogantly assume they don't have it.

Now, I've never really bothered with the Canadians. But I suspect if I made any effort, I could find lots of corruption just reported in the fucking news.

That's fine, I think I saw someone else say they felt the definition of material support was too vague. I think that's a valid complaint. I'd like an example of it being misused though so I know it isn't just a theoretical problem.

Apparently not, someone corrected me, they're offering a two way inverter, a control system, and a 10 year warranty with that price tag. Where as my comparison was only offering batteries.

Also someone said that lithium batteries cycle a lot deeper than even deep cycle lead batteries. So... I was just wrong. Tesla's product looks pretty good now.

can you give me an example of it being misused? In my mind, material support has a very clear meaning and I am having a hard time seeing it misused with any legitimacy.

The notion that interrogation has no value is asinine. I'm going to just stop there because it was so stupid I don't know where to go from here.

As to them not supporting terrorism... they were helping terrorists. You argue that you're helping them be peaceful but how has that worked out for the Palestinians? ehm? Most of the peace talks are just excuses to call a cease fire while the terrorists rearm.

Maybe it is me, but I am very cynical about terrorists asking for peace and I'd need a gesture of peace from them. They'd have to give something up. Maybe a big weapons cache or something. Short of that, I would have a hard time taking it seriously and that would render the whole process suspicious.

As to what we can offer them, we cannot be seen as their advocates. Consider if some other country came in and started arguing on behalf of Osama bin ladin, we wouldn't be well disposed to that country would we? Same thing. You don't want to be the devil's advocate. It is a shitty job.

As to nation states doing nasty things as well... yeah but we have treaties and alliances with states. Terrorist organizations are diplomatic dog food.

As to political problems... I ask you to not be obtuse. Come now. They could say "oh they're oppressing us" or "oh they're not giving us our human rights" or "oh they're waterboarding us" or something. And really they're just going anything they think will get their enemies in trouble. Oh they're raping our babies and eating our cats! Just whatever. And eventually something will come out that the media will buy into... maybe it is even true... and suddenly the terrorists don't look like assholes and now the host government is so pissed at the whole situation that they decide to just reduce ties to the west. And who wins then? Do the terrorists win? No. They get murdered in their sleep along with their babies and cats. Does the host country win? Not really... they're embarrassed and angry. Do we win? Nope, we lost friends for nothing.

So who wins... NO ONE... Weee!

As to letting the turks deal with your aid organization, actually they rely on us to deal with that in our country and in return they will deal with our enemies in their country.

It is very much a quid pro quo arrangement.

As to the end result being ultimately harmless... the diplomatic fallout would not be. So no.

The time of the terrorist organization won't be wasted though.

Here is the first rule of an insurrection which actually what both of those organizations really are:

"If you are not losing - you are winning." That is how insurrections work. Any insurrection that can just survive tends to eventually win. Any educated power knows this and so they don't let insurrections last even if they are ineffective.

As to the Iranian adventure, I believe most regard that as a mistake.

Are we not permitted to make those? We are mortal after all. Things make sense at one time and later don't make as much sense. Is that a sign of a twisted and dark heart full of evil and wickedness?

We do stupid things sometimes. What of it? On the whole our actions are quite rational and quite defensible. We will of course make the occasional blunder. There's no escaping that. Price of living on this planet and being another of the semi intelligent shaved apes.

As to your moral absolutism, it is unaffordable in war. Lets say you refuse to kill a baby... what if your enemy ties babies to themselves. Armor made out of the screaming bodies of babies. Will you shoot him and kill some babies?

Of course not. Because you believe in moral absolutes. So that man wearing his armor of babies is invulnerable. He can walk amongst your people and shoot your children in the head... one by one. And you won't do anything more than shout at him. Because after all, if you so much as touch him you might hurt a baby.

I am not a moral absolutist because it is a non-functional moral system in conflict. And any moral system that ceases to make sense in conflict which is a very common state of existence is a stupid moral system.

Your whole moral frame work is counter productive and illogical.

You must accept collateral damage... that occasionally old ladies are going to be deliberately pushed down the stairs or you're going to be dominated by people with a more adaptable outlook. At which point what you believe ceases to matter.

As to footholds, we did it all the time though. We projected power throughout the world through a network of alliances, vassals, protectorates, and other various associates to strangle the soviet union.

We isolated them politically, militarily, economically, and culturally. It was quite deliberate, methodical, and relentless. To say that they couldn't have done it to us makes no sense. If we can do it then of course they can as well. The struggle was to make sure we did it better than them.

Why did Nixon go to China? We were isolating the Soviets. If they built up some sort of following in South America that would undermine our efforts to choke the life out of the soviets. We couldn't have that. So every contact had to be broken or poisoned or so expensive that it wasn't worth it. Everywhere they met nothing but knives in the dark, poison in the well, and hate on the lips of the people. And if they didn't, we did our best to see it happened.

THAT was the cold war. You're citing mere battles in that war. Moralizing D day or Gettysberg as if they're not just a moment in a larger struggle. The point of those proxy wars was to isolate the soviets.

Please don't be obtuse, it makes it hard to have a productive discussion. If I used Osama bin ladin instead of nazi germany how would anything have changed?

As to whether we are personally at war with these people, we are allied with people that are and thus it doesn't really matter.

The Turks view them as terrorists and we have an obligation on pain of them refusing to cooperate with us to treat the kurds as our enemies.

That said, we generally cooperate as little as possible. As to the tigers, they assassinated politicians in India and Sri Lanka so... we can't really associate with them either. Also from what little I know of them, they seem unworthy of our sympathy.

Regardless, if we accept that they're terrorists then we can't help them. They have to stop.

If they foreswear terrorism etc then it is quite likely that they'll be taken off the lists. That has largely happened to the various terrorist irish groups that all forswore terrorism going forward so you can donate whatever you like to them now.

As to their objectives, it is dangerous to take their word for it. Terrorists are very happy to say that a box is full of baby milk one moment and then use that same box full of "baby milk" to blow up a bus later. So you can't believe their position outright because they lie.

It is possible they just wanted to create political problems for their enemies by bringing in international authorities.

In any case, I am led to believe the Tamil Tigers were annihilated. So that book apparently can be shut. As to the Kurds... we'll see where that goes. But as I said, they're more likely to get genocided than get a homeland if they agitate prematurely.

This is foolish. They should keep a low profile and wait.

As to quixotic political struggles, there will be reprisals from the turks and indians if they perceive you as helping terrorists in their own country. That alone is very relevant.

You want to help the Kurds? Have them publicly renounce any extralegal activities to attain their goals. That should get them off the shit lists. As it stands they're on the shit lists. We can't take them off without losing the Turks. And if we wish to have a presence in the middle east we the Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Israelis. Those powers legitimize us in that region.

So we can't give the Kurds anything. What we can do is not kill them even if the Turks ask us to. That's about all we can do in that situation.

I understand what you're saying, the problem is that I don't know if that is actually what they were trying to do. As you must know, the struggle would be quixotic. What happens when that becomes apparent? And what if they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time in full knowledge that it is all a farce?

Statutory rape is still rape in the same sense that second degree murder is still murder.

We're done. This is not a productive discussion.

Okay, lets say we're fighting Nazi germany and you're going to run a charity in the US to send medical supplies to starving orphans in Germany that have suffered because of American bombing.

Do you think the US government is going to let you do that?

If you want a closer apples to apples comparision... lets say you're helping the nazis file legal challenges against the US war against Nazi Germany... See?

It all applies.

Look, I feel for the Kurds. They should really have their own country. But our alliance with the turks requires us to not recognize the kurds. And the tamil tigars are not getting their independence this side of ever. So what is the point?

Both of these groups are more likely to get genocided then they are to get independence. If I were them, I'd keep my head down and not piss off the powers that hold sway over me. I might prepare... stock pile weapons... organize. But never give them any provocation to distrust me or oppress my people. I'd recommend both groups be loyal members of their respective nations and stop fighting. It serves no purpose.

Turkey fell once... it could fall again. If turkey falls, then the Kurds could get a nation like THAT. The tamil tigers... all I can say is dream on.

Look, you don't help terrorists. With anything. That's the law.

http://www.news.com.au/world/n...

Food for thought. And note that despite breaking into a home to sexually assault someone, she was not punished. A man in the same position would have gone to jail for some hard time.

You're dodging too much on the sperm bank issue for this to be a productive discussion.

Explain what assurances the sperm bank or doctor's visit provides the state that the napkin agreement does not?

See both as black boxes. Ignore what happens in either one and merely look at inputs and outputs of the two situations.

How is the output different in situation A from situation B?

I perceive no material difference. You need to challenge that or the entire process is a of dubious value.

1. And yet marines are taught where to stab a knife to cause the most harm. Where do you think they learned that? At some point, some battle hardened army surgeon provided his medical opinion for a hand to hand combat training manual.

Pretending that this hasn't been going on since always is naive.

That oath you're talking about goes back to ancient times. Do you think that the doctors in the triage tents of the Roman legion wouldn't be happy to tell a Centurion how best to kill a man?

Your interpretation of the doctor's oath is not uncommon but it is not the classical interpretation of it. You are to do no harm to your patient in a doctor patient relationship so as to preserve the trust and respect of the medical profession.

The doctor's oath is a practical oath and not a religious one. It is also there so that doctors don't confuse experimentation with medicine. When most people sit down to get helped by a doctor they assume the doctor will first do no harm. However, if the you have an incurable disease and will try anything, many patients ask for the doctors to try ANYTHING.

This is where medical researchers come in and if they have approval, they can attempt unproven medical treatments on the theory that the fellow is going to die anyway so they might as well give something a try. And of course he must give consent for that.

Now lets compare this situation to the interrogation room. There is no doctor patient relationship between the psychologist and the terrorist. The terrorist doesn't need to trust the psychologist. There is no practical reason for the oath besides you misunderstanding of why the Oath exists and your dogmatic adherence to it.

The doctor is actually properly in the employ of the DoD in that situation... not the terrorist. And furthermore he is there as a researcher. And just as medical researchers will vivisect rats and cut apart human fetuses... well this fellow in the room is a test subject.

And it gets better because psychologists desperately need test subjects. They're not able to get them anywhere else. So, this actually offers them an avenue to conduct real science. You can't for example break the mind of a college student to study psychology. It is unethical. You can't do it to death row inmates because that is seen as unethical. You can't do it to extremely insane people that will never be able to lead normal lives again unless they are cured because that is considered unethical.

They can't actually preform science in most cases. But then here comes the CIA... and they say... do what you need to do, just get us the information.

You might think this all ghoulish and evil but think of it scientifically. How can you learn if you aren't allowed to take anything apart? And here we are... the CIA offering to let psychologists take a mind apart... psychologically strip them down and play with the core components. Evil? Debatable. We are talking about terrorists here. The information extracted from them could save lives or even tip the fate of nations from barbarism into modernity... possibly saving millions from short savage lives. And of course, learning something about the mind could mean new EFFECTIVE treatments for psychological disorders which could advance human knowledge.

So you see... the morality on the issue is quite cloudy.

2. As to breaking someone and losing my moral compass... I am not dehumanizing them actually. I just have a different concept of what being human means than you. If fully regard their humanity. And I would do it anyway.

You suggest I don't have empathy, but I do actually. I am extremely empathetic. Painfully so on occasion. But you are correct that I do not sympathize with the terrorist. I know he is a human. I know he is in pain and suffering from fear etc. I know it and I feel it. It gives me no pleasure. To the contrary, his suffering causes me to suffer as well. I do it anyway because I need the information.

Ironically it is you that are dehumanizing me. You are suggesting that because I do not hold to your ideology I am lacking human feeling. False. I feel as much as you if not more. It hurts me. But sometimes it has to be done.

3. As to how I know they're hardened terrorists, that is the premise of my argument. It was a given. A "assume these conditions" statement.

You wish me to consider non-hardened terrorists? Well, they should be easier to get to cooperate, shouldn't they? And that means needing to do less to get them either to accidentally tell us what we want to know or spook them so they just say what we want to know.

You don't need to hurt someone to make them talk. You fellows have such an amusingly medieval view of these things. Typically you can get what you want simply with a bit of theater. Simply putting on a grim face and creating an atmosphere that makes them feel like never going to get out is enough typically. The hardened ones would rather die of course. They thrive on the finality of death etc. So you need to break that mental state. There are many ways of doing that. Some of them are nasty and some of them will leave no marks.

4. As to interrogations and trials, we are speaking of a military setting... trials do not enter into it. During WW2 we interrogated hundreds of Nazi spies in the US. Typically they were held for perhaps a week or so until we felt we had everything of value out of them and then we shot them.

This conflation of military with civilian is silly. I do not hold a trial before I shoot a man on the battlefield. All I need to know is he is not an ally and he is not surrendering.

And before you bring up the PoW thing with the terrorists, they must wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians to be considered enemy soldiers. Literally anything will work. A red bandana around an arm, a tattoo on the face... anything that separates them from civilians. And if they are caught wearing such a uniform then they are PoWs. If they are caught wearing civilian clothing AND weapons then they are neither civilians nor soldiers. And the Geneva convention is silent on that matter. I believe by international law I could probably eat them alive on international television without breaking the rules. So... explain again why I need to give anyone a trial?

The point of the war crimes trials was to negate the PoW status of Nazi war criminals. These are people that surrendered. And we killed them anyway because we determined that their actions were so bad prior to surrendering that we could not let them live.

As the people we hold in these cells are not PoWs unless you can cite some uniform they're wearing... are you instead saying that they're war criminals? I don't understand what legal precedent you're attempting to use here.

Can you cite something from history where anyone followed the rules you're talking about? Has the US ever made a practice holding a trial for every enemy they met on the battlefield? I'm not seeing the logic.

As to real interrogators... What do you do if the subject refuses to speak to you? Just says nothing at all. How do you start the conversation?

I'm sorry, but all carrot and no stick isn't optimal.

As to what is moral or not... that is your opinion. Explain to me why I should care more about your opinion than you do about mine? You clearly hold my position in contempt and feel no obligation to do things my way even though this is my opinion. So then why must I do things your way simply because that is your opinion?

Your position is illogical and possibly narcissistic or egotistical. You seem to think that something should matter because it matters to you? I am not motivated to respect that.

As to ethics, I'd like that explained.

As to torture not working, it depends on what you mean. Simply hurting someone until they tell you what you want to know does not work. This has been known for thousands of years actually.

However, interrogation often uses things that look like torture but have a different objective.

Lets go over this systematically.

The two things an interrogator has to deal with is people that won't talk to him and people that lie. Those are the two things you need to eliminate to do your job properly.

Now, a gifted interrogator can tell a lie when he hears it. He just knows.. However, an educated interrogator can cover for his lack of super human abilities by simply making his opponent dumber. There are various ways of doing this. Lying is actually very hard. it is one of the hardest things we do all the time. It involves creating an articial reality in your mind and simulating various answers that you judge in series to be believable and then choosing amongst them, and then emoting to your interrogator as if that lie is the truth. It is much easier to tell the truth.

Interrogators exploit this difference. You can do various things. Alcohol for example was a common trick at one point. You get your subject a bit drunk and their lies become easier to spot. You can do other things such as causing emotional durress. This is where interrogation is often confused with torture. The point of interrogation is to extract information. The point of torture is to hurt people as some kind of punishment. In any case, an interrogator can cause emotional distress through sleep deprivation, hurting them so they get scared, or doing other things that cause a heightened emotional state.

The point of that is to make you stupid... not hurt you. Waterboarding for example was developed as a means to scare a subject. The panic reaction is exploited to render the subject temporarily less intelligent and that makes it harder for them to lie convincingly.

Whatever you think of the morality, this process does work quite well. The interrogator in a police station uses the same methods within the law. Again, his two main problems are getting someone to talk and then detecting lies. Police and military interrogators cannot force someone to talk. You have to make them WANT to talk. And you do that in various ways.

Drugs were quite popular as an interrogation tool during the Cold War. sodium pentathol for example made it into the movies as a favorite truth drug of the spy world. Do you know how it works? It makes you drunk. It doesn't make you talk any more than booze does. It just makes you dopey and stupid. LSD was used as well.. again it creates a heightened emotional state. Imagine scaring someone that is on LSD. Everything exaggerated.

So there you go. I assure you, it works. Now if you want to claim it is immoral or something, that is another matter and we can talk about that. But claiming interrogation doesn't work is silly.

Torture doesn't work as an interrogation method because it doesn't include the analysis and psychology of a proper interrogation. However, Torture does work if you want to hurt people and that's all you want. And interrogation works if you want to interrogate.

But neither interrogation nor torture are especially effective at accomplishing the opposing goal.

it is an odd logical transposition you've laid at my feet. I'm not sure how to take it.

Your example is very poor because you've not kept clear in your mind the criteria of the law.

The issue is helping a criminal element. That includes helping them by giving them medicine or helping them by giving them food or in this case helping them petition international bodies for aid.

The law doesn't stipulate that some kinds of help for terrorist groups are okay and some are not. It says helping them is wrong.

Lets say Zombie Osama Bin Ladin comes back and is up to his old tricks. And amongst his little programs is trolling international organizations by asking for aid or citing his terrorist organization as a charity so that people can donate money for him to buy whatever he needs. Helping him do that would be material support.

So... give me an example that makes me not like the law. Because that example seemed reasonable.